Campaigns Wikia:Requests for Adminship/Bsuccess
Successful Requests for Bureaucratship Chadlupkes *Chadlupkes - Nominated by --Splarka (talk) 02:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC) **I support this. Chad has done some great work on this wiki and can be trusted to handle the granting of access to other users. Angela (talk) 03:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC) *Accepted. I've been vocal in advocating for progressive positions, and will continue to be, but I don't let that stand in the way of being fair. Chadlupkes 03:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC) Vote (4/1/0) *'Oppose' Lou franklin 04:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC) :Chadlupkes is a nice guy, but I don't think he's the guy you want to hand the keys to the castle to. I would prefer a more moderate and even-tempered candidate. :This site needs moderates in positions of power. A liberal power structure here would be the death of the site. If moderates and conservatives are not fairly represented here they will not return and the site will become nothing more than a bunch of liberals discussing politics with no opposing viewpoints. :He accepted the nomination with a comment of "I've been vocal in advocating for progressive positions, and will continue to be". The last thing we need here is an advocate for progressive positions. :Additionally, I don't think he has always used the best judgement. For example, he repeatedly reverted my changes to my own talk page. ::I did, yes. And we protected the page at a point that you were being unreasonable and prone to vandalism. I was not alone in those actions, but I'll admit it could be seen as heavy handed. After reading your Wikipedia history, I was unsure of your intentions. I apologize. Chadlupkes 13:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC) :When I disagreed with him, he posted "Your refusal to consider anyone else's viewpoint, and your continual unwillingness to compromise is making this one of the most unpleasant online conversations I have ever been in." That was not terribly civil and doesn't recognize the fact that not everybody will always agree with him. He doesn't seem to understand that what he sees as a "refusal to consider anyone else's viewpoint" is actually a refusal to agree with his viewpoint. :Rather than looking at the facts and removing homosexual "marriage" from the category of "civil rights", which was clearly the right course of action, he staged a "vote". He's a fine contributor and I wish him well, but frankly I'm not comfortable with him in the driver's seat. *'Support' Jfing[[Wikipedia:User:Jfingers88/Esperanza|'e']]rs88 13:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC) :I look up to Chad and see him editing/stalking the recent changes a lot of the times I am. He really knows how this is working, and listens to input. :In response to Lou franklin's arguments: ::So far, Chad has done nothing extreme, as far as I know. I know he said he has "been vocal in advocating for progressive positions" (emphasis added), but he has not been pushing them. He supports his positions and tries to be fair in all cases. He posed the vote in the Same-sex marriage issue because he did not want to make a unilateral decision, thus showing deference to consensus. Therefore, Chad will probably defer to consensus decisions concerning promotions to bureaucrat and administrator, which is the main duty of a bureacrat. Jfing[[Wikipedia:User:Jfingers88/Esperanza|'e']]rs88 13:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC) *'Support' ШΔLÐSΣИ 14:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC) :Chad, the site wouldn't be the same without you! (*misty*). *'Support' --Splarka (talk) 17:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC) :Note that as a Wikia staff member I mostly only watch this wiki, rather than actively participate, but I feel he is trustworthy. *'Support' --whosawhatsis? 02:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC) :He has some pretty strong beliefs, but has demonstrated his open-mindedness willingness to consider other opinions. I understand Lou's objections, but Chad shouldn't be penalized just because he's (currently) in a majority around here, and Campaigns Wikia shouldn't be penalized for it either.